Nazir 9a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

One who said: "

I am a Nazirite from dried figs

dried figs

and from

or from

pressed fig cakes"

dried figs pressed together, which are not forbidden to a Nazirite—

Beit Shammai say:

he is

a Nazirite

with regard to all its laws, but he is permitted to eat dried figs and pressed fig cakes.

And Beit Hillel say: He is not a Nazirite, and

there is no substance in his words.

Rabbi Yehuda said

to disagree with the words of the first tanna according to the view of Beit Shammai:

Even when Beit Shammai said

that one who says, "I am a Nazirite from dried figs," has substance in his words,

they did not say

their words with regard to naziriteship

except when he says: "

They are a sacrifice for me."

That is: He does not become a Nazirite at all; rather, he is forbidden to eat dried figs or pressed fig cakes as though he had said, "They are a sacrifice for me," in which case he would become forbidden to them by the law of a vow. And what he said in the language of naziriteship is an expression of separation, as though he had said: I am separated from dried figs.

Gemara:

And the Gemara challenges what we learned:

"I am a Nazirite from dried figs and from pressed fig cakes"; Beit Shammai say: He is a Nazirite

he is:

And why?

But

the Merciful One said: "From anything that is made from the grapevine's wine",

for the Nazirite is forbidden to them; and had he accepted naziriteship upon himself from one of these, he would indeed be a Nazirite, as explained above, 3b. But dried figs and pressed fig cakes are not forbidden to a Nazirite, so why should he become a Nazirite if he made himself a Nazirite from them?

a. One who says, "My valuation is upon me," or, "The valuation of so-and-so is upon me," is obligated to give to the Temple treasury the amount of his valuation, according to the measure established by the Torah in the section of valuations, in the portion of Bechukotai. He is not assessed according to the market value of the person being valued, but according to the fixed valuation given by the Torah, according to what he is: whether male or female, and according to his age.

b. There is a "valuation" only for a person, as is explained in the section of valuations; but the section of valuations was not given for utensils. And if he said, "The value of this utensil is upon me," he is obligated only by the law of a vow.

c. Rabbi Meir and the Sages disputed, in the case of one who "valued" a utensil, saying, "The valuation of this utensil is upon me," whether he is obligated to give its value by the law of a vow.

According to Rabbi Meir, the one who "values" is obligated to give its value to the Sanctuary, because we say: A person does not utter his words in vain. Since he knows that they have no "valuation," he certainly intended to obligate himself by the law of a vow. But according to the Sages, he is entirely exempt.

d. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Meir disputed the case of one who exchanged an unconsecrated animal for two sacrificial animals standing before him, one an elevation-offering and one a peace-offering, and said a contradictory expression: "This is the substitute of an elevation-offering, the substitute of a peace-offering." According to the Sages: "We seize the first expression," and the animal is the substitute of an elevation-offering, whereas Rabbi Yose holds

even

that a person is caught by the end of his words as well. We seize both parts of his speech, and two sanctities took effect in this animal. Therefore, it is redeemed when it becomes blemished, and with the value of half of it he brings an elevation-offering, and with the value of half of it he brings a peace-offering.

And we answer:

Beit Shammai adopt the view of Rabbi Meir, who said

concerning one who said, "The valuation of this utensil is upon me,"

a person does not utter his words in vain,

and since he knows that there is no "valuation" for a utensil, he certainly did not intend to obligate himself from the section of valuations; rather, he intended to say, "The value of this utensil is upon me."

Here too, since he knows that there is no naziriteship from dried figs, he certainly did not utter his words in vain. And when he said, "I am a Nazirite," he intended that he should be a Nazirite from wine.

And

the reason of

Beit Hillel

is, because they hold that it is not applicable to say here the principle that a person does not utter his words in vain, and because:

For

Beit Hillel hold

with regard to "I am a Nazirite from dried figs,"

like Rabbi Yose, who said

elsewhere: "Even

by the end of his words a person is caught"

and therefore, one who says, "This is the substitute of an elevation-offering, the substitute of a peace-offering," we seize even the end of his words; and when it becomes blemished, half of it is sold for the value of an elevation-offering and half for the value of a peace-offering. And he disagreed with the Sages, who said with regard to substitution: "We seize the first expression," and it is only the substitute of an elevation-offering.

That is: In the case of one who says, "I am a Nazirite from dried figs" -

since there is no contradiction between the end of his words and the beginning of his words—for through the end of his words his intention is clarified, that he intended naziriteship from dried figs and not from wine—Beit Hillel hold that we must seize his entire expression, like Rabbi Yose in a case where the expressions contradict one another.

And

since his entire expression is one single unit, it follows that

this

acceptance that he accepted

is a vow with its opening together with it

a vow that has an opening with it in order to nullify it; for the end of his expression nullifies the possibility of imposing upon his words a vow of naziriteship.

And it is not applicable to say in this case, "A person does not utter his words in vain," and that he should be a Nazirite, because we say this only when one says, "The valuation of this utensil is upon me": since it is possible to interpret the expression "valuation" as not referring to the section of valuations, but to monetary worth, as though he had said, "The value of this utensil is upon me." But the expression, "I am a Nazirite from dried figs," cannot be interpreted at all as referring to naziriteship; inevitably, he indeed uttered his words in vain.

And we challenge:

And for Beit Shammai as well,

it is

"a vow with its opening together with it"

it is, for the end of his words explains the beginning of his words, that there is no vow here, in accordance with the reasoning of Beit Hillel; so why do Beit Shammai say that he is a Nazirite?

And we answer:

a. One who made a vow and regretted his vow, or found an "opening" through which to ask about it—that he would not have made the vow with this in mind—asks a sage about his vow, and he releases him from it.

b. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disputed the law of asking about vows of consecration. According to Beit Shammai, "There is no asking about consecration," because they hold, below, 30b, that erroneous consecration is consecration, and the asking and release by the sage are effective only because through this it becomes like an erroneous vow. But Beit Hillel hold that erroneous consecration is consecration, and they do not distinguish among vows; all of them may be asked about.

c. It is explained in our discussion that just as, according to Beit Shammai, there is no asking and no error with consecration, so too there is no retraction within the time needed to utter a short statement with consecration.

It is further explained in our discussion that the law of naziriteship is like the law of consecration with regard to asking about it, for even a Nazirite is called holy, as it is said: "He shall be holy; the growth of the untrimmed hair of his head." Therefore, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree concerning naziriteship, just as they disagree concerning consecration.

Rather

the reason of

Beit Shammai

is because

they adopt the view of Rabbi Meir, who said: A person does not utter his words in vain,

as we explained initially; and we indeed seize all his words, as the Gemara challenged, and we interpret his words as follows:

And since he said: "

I am a Nazirite,"

he becomes a Nazirite.

And

when he says "

from dried figs and from pressed fig cakes,"

he has come in order to ask about it.

That is: He has come to regret it

and retract within the time needed to utter a short statement from his acceptance of naziriteship

—

and Beit Shammai,

who hold that retraction from acceptance of naziriteship is not effective even within the time needed to utter a short statement,

according to their view

according to their position,

for they say: There is no asking about consecration, because "erroneous consecration is consecration," and consequently the same is true that there is no retraction within the time needed to utter a short statement from consecration.

because “an erroneous consecration is consecrated property.” It follows that the same law applies: there is no retraction from consecration within the time required to say a short statement.

And since there is no asking about consecration,

even

there is no asking about naziriteship.

And Beit Hillel, too, are consistent with their method: They maintain that there is annulment for consecration, because consecration made in error is not consecration. Since there is annulment for consecration, there is also annulment, error, and retraction within the time required to utter a short statement with regard to naziriteship.

For naziriteship is like consecration, since it is stated: "He shall be holy; the growth of the untrimmed hair of his head."

And Beit Hillel, too, according to their position, hold that there is asking about consecration, because erroneous consecration is not consecration; and since there is asking about consecration, there is also asking, error, and retraction within the time needed to utter a short statement in naziriteship. And the Gemara adds to explain the position of Beit Hillel.

For seemingly one could say: Even though he is not a Nazirite, nevertheless let him be one who has vowed concerning dried figs, because what he said, "I am a Nazirite from dried figs," can be interpreted as though he had made a vow concerning dried figs. And to explain why this is not so, the Gemara says:

And Beit Hillel hold like Rabbi Shimon,

who says that anything that he did not vow in the manner of those who make vows is not a vow. Since he did not vow concerning dried figs in the manner of those who vow concerning them—for they say, "Dried figs are konam to me"—but said, "I am a Nazirite from dried figs," there is here neither naziriteship nor a vow.

For we learned in a Mishna [Menahot 103a, and it was cited here on the reverse side] One who volunteers and says, "A meal-offering of barley is upon me"—for a voluntary meal-offering does not come from barley—must bring one from wheat.

And Rabbi Shimon exempts,

since

he did not volunteer in the manner of those who volunteer.